Dear Jeff,
> > Hummmm, I would not say that. From my perspective, the goal of the
> former is
> > to show how to use together different vocabularies in the context of a
> > specific use case
>
> It might not be proper to design the interoperability framework for *a
> specific use case*.
I didn't say that ! What I meant was: we take a particular use case (that we
think might be generalizable but we cannot prove it!) and for this particular use
case, we observe what the interoperability problems are ... We come with a
solution and we iterate this process for several (representative?) use cases ...
I could buy the jump to "an interoperability framework" when I will know what
this thing is ... currently it does not exist for me ...
> > This is unfirtunately now always our case.
>
> I wouldn't say it is *now always" our case, but this is one of the cases
> that the simple framework can/should cover. And an integrated set of
> vocabulary is indeed what the Photo use case asks for. It is important to
> note that we want to include in our simple framework some useful *and*
> easy-to-support features, such as the samePropertyAs relation.
Sorry, typo !
You _should_ have read: "This is unfortunately NOT always our case." :-)))
Best regards.
RaphaÅ½l
--
RaphaÅ½l Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/